SYRIA : Direct clash between Moscow and Washington. Who’s pulling the strings?

Following the American bombing of a humanitarian convoy in Syria (on the 20th September 2016) and five long hours of relentless bombardment of Syrian army positions by the US air-force, a violation of the cease-fire agreement signed on 9 September, Moscow is taking a harder line.

During a BBC interview, the Russian foreign affairs minister, Sergueï Lavrov, dropped diplomatic language and openly accused the US of protecting terrorists belonging to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly the Al-Nusra Front) when he pointed out that “The Americans have never attacked a single position belonging to the Al-Nusra Front”. (1)

This was confirmed by a commanding officer of the Al-Nusra Front in an interview granted to the German newspaper Stadt-Anzeiger : “Yes, the US support the opposition (in Syria), but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are still not satisfied with this support”. (2) What’s more, he revealed that the terrorist group had won battles thanks to American TOW anti-tank missiles which were “directly given” to his troops and added that “thanks to these missiles, the situation in several (Syrian) regions is under control”. Regarding heavy artillery, he explained that “our tanks and rocket-launchers came from Libya via Turkey”.

In order to prevent any future error being made by the American air-force, and thereby protect the Syrian army and Russian ground units, Russia has deployed its defensive missile systems (S300 and S400). Washington’s reaction was swift. Pentagon spokesman, Peter Cook, warned the Russians: “It must be clear for the Russians and all those operating in Syria that we take very seriously the safety our pilots”. In response, the spokesman for the Russian ministry of defence, Igor Konachenkov, stated: “we reiterate that the S-300 is uniquely for defence purposes and threatens nobody”. (3)

It should be made clear that the Russians decided to deploy their defensive systems following news that Washington was considering carrying out air-strikes against the Syrian army. Igor Konachenkov added in a press statement that “We have to be aware of the fact that the Russian systems will not have time to identify the precise trajectory of the missiles and their origin. And those who claim that invisible airplanes exist are heading for a big disappointment” (4)

We have perhaps come to a point of no return in this stand-off between America and Russia. A direct confrontation between the two great military powers in Syria could cause a world war. But one question, which has never been asked, remains: who would benefit from this possible world war? In order to identify the guilty party and the ultimate beneficiary of this coming world war, it is necessary to go back to the origins of the Syrian conflict and those who created it.

ARCHITECTS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Israeli leaders and the Israeli lobby in America jumped into action to use these attacks as a justification for a series of war against their Arab neighbours, a war which the Americans were to wage on their behalf. In statement which Netanyahou had published in the Chicago Sun-Times on the 7 January, we see very clearly that 9/11 was nothing other than a pretext for the reconstruction of the Middle East: “Should America overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaida network would fall apart on its own accord. The United States must now act in the same way for the other regimes of terror – Iran, Iraq, the dictatorship of Yasser Arafat, Syria and several others” (5)

In 2002, the very powerful pro-Israeli lobby group, AIPIC, held their annual conference, the theme of which was “America and Israel against Terrorism”. Discussions focused on the common threats to Israel and the US: the old and tired Yasser Arafat (who, poisoned, would die two years later), the former CIA employee Ossama bin Laden, the Taliban (armed and supported by the CIA via the Pakistani special forces), Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. (6)

In April 2002, the American neoconservative think-tank PNAC (Project for the New American Century) published a letter addressed to president Bush. This letter was signed by several Jewish figures (William Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz) and non-Jewish Zionists (William Bennet, R James Woosley) together with 28 other prominent neoconservatives figures: “Nobody should doubt that the United States and Israel have a common enemy. Our two countries are the target of what you have rightly called the ‘axis of evil’. As the secretary of state for defence, Donald Rumsfeld, pointed out, Iran, Iraq and Syria encourage a culture of political assassination and terrorist attacks against Israel, just as they have supported terrorist campaigns against the US. Mr President, you have declared war against international terrorism. Israel is fighting the same war”. (7)

Looking at the chronology of the statements, we can clearly see that the neoconservatives have in fact merely followed a plan which was drawn up well in advance by Israeli strategists, their American followers and by their agents of influence planted at the heart of the citadel of American power…

In the US, the promoters of this project to destroy Arab countries are the neoconservatives. But make no mistake: the roots of neoconservatism are essentially Jewish. (8)

It’s worth noting that the hard core of American neoconservatives is dominated by Jews, who occupy key posts in influential organisations, foundations and political institutions, such as:   Elliott Abrams, Keneth Adelman, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz. In journalism, we find David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Bret Stephens and Norman Podhoretz.

Among the Jewish neoconservative university professors, we find Eliot Cohen, Aaron Fridberg, Ruth Wedgwood and the highly influential Bernard Lewis, a pro-Israeli Jewish historian (father of the “theory” of the clash of civilisations, popularised by his assistant, Samuel Huntington).

Note that among the experts we have Max Boot, David Frum, Reuel Gerecht, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen (father of the “constructive chaos” doctrine), Joshua Maravchik, the ineffable Daniel Pipes, Danielle Pletka, Michael Rubin and Meyra Wurmser.

The Jewish neoconservative Max Boot stated very clearly that “support for Israel is one the key principles of neoconservatism”. (9) As renowned American professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt point out: “neoconservatism is a sub-set of the pro-Israeli movement. Jewish Americans are at the heart of the neoconservative movement, in the same way that they form the majority of the (pro-Israeli) lobby”. (10)

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

BACK TO THE ORIGINS OF THE SYRIAN WAR

American strategic aims in Syria are based on the Israeli plan written in 1982 by Oded Yinon (11), who was an official at the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs.  This primarily targeted Iraq and made a plan to disintegrate the country before subjecting it to the same treatment as Syria. The Israelis, via the intermediary of the United States, have indeed followed the Oded Yinon plan to the letter. As soon as Baghdad fell, the Israeli leaders began to prepare for the future war against Syria, making accusations of a Syrian chemical weapons programme.

In April 2003, when Baghdad had just fallen, the Israelis started to push the United States to attack the Syrian regime. (12)

In an interview granted to the newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth on the 15 April 2003, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated that Bashar Al-Assad was “a dangerous man, incapable of sound judgement”. The Israelis had already said the same thing about Saddam Hussein who, according to them, had hidden “weapons of mass destruction” in Syria in collusion with Damascus just before the outbreak of the conflict. Is there really any need to explain why such an accusation is ludicrous?

Sharon called for the United States to put “great pressure” on Syria to force it to stop supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He also demanded that Lebanon: drive out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards from the Beqaa Valley; stop all cooperation with Iran; force Hezbollah to withdraw from its positions on the border with Israel; replace Hezbollah with the Lebanese army; and remove its short-range missiles targeting Israel. (13)

In other words, Sharon demanded that all barriers to Israeli expansion in the region be removed; he wanted the Levant served on a plate. Even an Israeli diplomat criticised Sharon’s excessive demands, inviting him to be more discreet regarding the relations between Damascus and Washington. (14)

Sharon was not an isolated case among the Israeli leaders. The minister of defence, Shaul Mofaz, declared on 14 April 2003 that: “We have a long list of demands regarding the Syrians, and it seems appropriate that they be communicated via the Americans” (15). Like Sharon, the minister of defence demanded that Syria break all links with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and that Hezbollah be disbanded.(16)

Two weeks later, Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraïm Halevy, came to Washington to push American leaders to take decisive action against Syria. He deployed the well-known Israeli argument; according to him, Syria had weapons of mass destruction and they were in the hands of Bashar al-Assad, who was described as being “irresponsible” and “arrogant”. (17)

For its part, Syria – whether it be under Hafez (1930-2000) or under Bashar al-Assad, throughout the 90s and from the year 2000 onwards – has sought peace with both the Israelis and the Americans. But the Israelis – who, as usual accepted to enter negotiations in order to better deceive – systematically derailed negotiations or simply did not comply with the agreements made. For instance, in December 2003, Assad proposed a peace deal and Haaretz’s military correspondent, Ze’ev Schiff, made the following comment: “The most surprising thing about the Syrian president’s proposal to resume peace talks with Israel is the Israeli leaders response…Prime minister Ariel Sharon has remained silent. Not a single word has passed his lips… We in the press have always held up hopes that such an offer would be made” (18)

This policy of mistrust towards Syria, promoted by the Israelis in the United States, did not please the American administration. The CIA and the State Department, in particular, stressed that the policy of confronting Syria was a strategic error. But Israel and the pro-Israel lobby convinced the American government to follow them down this road. (19) They used the same argument that they had previously used for Iraq, namely that Syria was not only a severe threat to Israel but also to the United States (20). It could well be asked in what sense Syria could possibly be a threat to the United States? No lie is too big for the Israeli leaders. By destabilising the region and beyond, these falsehoods have serious consequences.

Following the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Israelis declared that Syria was, at the very least, just as dangerous as Iraq. The Israeli strategists, Yossi Alpher, giving the Israeli point of view on Syria, explained that “Syria had a great ability to do harm, much more so than Iraq”. In April 2003, the Washington Post reported that Sharon and Mofaz strove to fuel the anti-Assad campaign by swamping the United States with secret reports on the misdeeds of president Bashar al-Assad (21) and the concealment of his Iraqi weapons.(22)  Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States began their anti-Syrian campaign as early as 1996. (23) The current situation is merely the direct consequence of this.

For those who believe that attempts to overthrow the Syrian government began in 2011 following the supposed “massacres” of Syrian civilians by Assad, here’s something that will make them think again. In April 2003 (eight years before the Arab Spring), Paul Wolfowitz, a Jewish neoconservative, declared that “regime change in Syria is essential”. Speaking to a journalist, Richard Perle, also a Jewish neoconservative, said that “we will be able send a short message, five words long, to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: now it is your turn”. (24)

In the light of these facts, and given Israel’s constant aggression towards Syria together with its open support of terrorists, it is obvious that the potential war between the United States and Russia will ultimately be to the exclusive benefit of Israel. Its goal is to have its insane project completed by the United States, which is supposed to destroy the Syrian army and drive Russia out of the region, in order to finally clear the way for Greater Israel, which will stretch to the Euphrates. In other words, Greater Israel will be built on the corpse of the Syrian nation.

When the great global catastrophe happens, we shouldn’t forget who the true culprits are.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Jean Terrien

Source: Rivarol, n°3253, 13/10/2016

http://www.rivarol.com/Rivarol.html


REFERENCES

  1. Lavrov : Les Etats-Unis protègent un groupe jihadiste en Syrie : <http://aa.com.tr/fr/monde/lavrov-les-etats-unis-prot%C3%A8gent-un-groupe-jihadiste-en-syrie-/655943>.
  2. Russia Today, 27/09/2016.
  3. 20 minutes, Syrie : L’armée russe déploie des systèmes de défense antiaérienne S-300, 05/10/2016.
  4. Sputnik News, Moscou annonce ses intentions d’abattre tout missile menaçant en Syrie, 06/10/2016.
  5. Benjamin Netanyahou, Three Pinciple Keys to Defeat Terrorism, Chicago Sun-Times, 7 January 2002.
  6. Dana Hearn, AIPAC Policy Conference, 21-22 April 2002, Journal of Palestine Studies 31, n° 4, summer, 2002, pp. 66-79.
  7. Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat, and the World on Terrorism, Project for the New American Century, 3 avril 2002, www.newamericancentury.Org/bushletter-040302.htm
  8. Murray Friedman explains that neoconservatism is a Jewish invention in: The Neoconservative Revolution : Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. See also the article written by Gal Beckerman in The Forward, The Neoconservative Persuasion, 6 janvier 2006.
  9. Max Boot, What the Heck is a Neocon ?, Wall Street Journal, 30 December 2002.
  10. Walt and Mearsheimer, La politique étrangère américaine et le lobby pro-israélien, 2007, La Découverte.
  11. Oded Yinon’s A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, 1982. New French translation, Le Plan sioniste pour le Moyen-Orient, Sigest, Paris, 2015.
  12. Seymour Hersh, The Syrian Bet, art. cit. ; Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S. Pressure Syria on Militant, Washington Post, 17 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Jerusalem Urges Bush ; Next Hezbollah, Forward, 11 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Sharon Aide Makes the Case for U.S. Action against Syria, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Marc Perelman, Behind Warnings to Damascus : Reassessment of Younger Assad, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to keep on Syria, Calls Assad “dangerous”, Haaretz, 15 avril 2003.
  13. Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to Keep Heat on Syria. See also Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S., article quoted in Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  14. Herb Keinon, Sharon Criticized for Public Declaration on Syria-U.S. Tension, Jerusalem Post, 16 avril 2003.
  15. Ori Nir, Sharon Aide Makes the Case. See also DeYoung, U.S. Toughens Warning, quoted in Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S.
  16. Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  17. Forward, quoted par Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  18. Ze’ev Schiff, The Peace Threat from Damascus, Haaretz, 8 december 2003. See the details of Syrian peace offers in Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., chap. 9.
  19. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
  20. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
  21. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
  22. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300. See note 51, p. 475.
  23. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
  24. Wolfowitz quoted in Nathan Guttman, Some Senior U.S. Figures Say Syria Has Crossed the Red Line, Haaretz, 14 avril 2004 ; Perle quoted in Michael Flynn, The War Hawks : The Right Flexes Muscle with New U.S. Agenda, Chicago Tribune, 13 avril 2003.

US Supplies Weapons to Armed Groups in Syria

arton192140-03336

On the 3 June 2016, the Pentagon parachuted weapons to armed groups in Marea.

Washington hopes that these armed groups will drive back ISIL in the province of Rakka.

There are three groups could have benefited from this support, which violates international law :

  • Groups affiliated to the Kurdish People’s Protection Unit (YPG)
  • Turkmen armed groups under the command of Turkish soldiers
  • Arab soldiers, who once belonged to the Syrian Free Army, now under the command of French soldiers

These last two groups had at first fought against the Syrian Arab Republic alongside the Al-Nusra Front (the Syrian branch of Al-Qaida) and Ahrar al-Sham, two groups which have committed crimes against humanity.

Translated from French

Source: Réseau Voltaire

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192140.html

 

Turkey transports weapons and ammunition to jihadist armed groups in Syria

On 3 June 2016, the Russian ministry of defence made public video images taken from a reconnaissance aircraft. The video shows long lines of lorries transporting ammunition and weapons from Turkey to armed groups in Idleb, Syria.

It is not yet possible to precisely identify these armed groups. At best we know that the West currently supports the Turkmen, the Kurds as well as former Arab members of the Free Syrian Army.  According to Russian and Syrian defence ministers, the majority of the armed individuals are members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaida.

On the same day, the Pentagon had itself dropped weapons and ammunition into Marea*. We do not know which armed group took these supplies.

The liberation of Idlib would allow Syria and Russia to free Alep, which would spell the end of plans to overthrow the Syrian republic and establish an Islamic fundamentalist government.

*See https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/syria-pentagon-drops-weapons-to-armed-groups/

See also “Are we honestly fighting against the Isamic State (ISIL)?”

https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/are-we-really-fighting-against-isis/

 

Translated from French

Source: Réseau Voltaire

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192146.html

 

Assad – Portrayed as Tyrant to Serve Western Interests

Interview with Fahad Al Masry, member of the Syrian opposition and coordinator of the Syrian National Salvation Front

Fahad al-Masri

 

The US and Russia have intensified their military efforts in Syria with the help of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG). Do you think an end to the crisis is now near?

You must remember that during the ISSG meeting, held last May in Paris, there were many disagreements, caused by the difference in Russian and American policies. This also led to the creation of two different groups: one supported the US and Russia, while the other supported Europe, led by Germany and France (and also included Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar). They created a European, Arab and Muslim coalition; the dozen or so Arab and European countries which formed the Group of Friends of the Syrian People continues to declare its support for the opposition.

This situation is due to Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy which left Russia free to intervene in the conflict, while sidelining Turkey and the Gulf countries. This split within the support group can be clearly seen because, during the Paris meeting, there was tension between the Europeans (France and Germany) and the other countries.

There are a number of unresolved issues, even if all parties claim that the target date for political transition is a real goal. The Vienna talks aimed to strengthen relations between the partner countries and to rebuild alliances which had became too narrowly focused during the Paris meeting.  Russia, an ally of Bashar al-Assad, reported in early May on active negotiations aimed at bringing an end to the conflict in Aleppo.

Moscow, however, had warned that it did not intend to put pressure on Damascas to stop carrying out air strikes on the city, even though that’s what had Washington’s demanded. All these alliances and disagreements make the Syrian issue very complicated. An alliance, or several alliances even, within the same support group does not necessarily help attempts to find a resolution to the crisis. The post-Geneva period is only just beginning, and the hope is that we do not go down the road of a Geneva V, Geneva VI…etc

The United States does not see a future for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it is one of their priorities: remove him from power. What’s your opinion on this matter?

As Lakhdar Brahimi once put it, Bashar al-Assad is finished. This declaration can be justified given that Bashar al-Assad had supported the Iranian and Russian attacks on civilians demanding freedom and respect.

History will remember that Obama was the worst American president ever because his policy pushed Syria and the entire region into endless conflict. From the beginning, Washington severly criticised Assad’s policy. But while Assad was free to transgress all limits, the US did nothing but interfere in our internal affairs rather than finding a solution to both the conflict and Bashar al-Assad.

The image of Bashar as a tyrant merely served the interests of certain world powers who aim to destroy our country and destabilise the entire region to serve interests beyond our own. Syria is not the only target. This strategy of destruction targets other countries, too, in particular the countries in Northern Africa, such as Algeria.

Do you think that recapturing Rakka from ISIL could have an impact on other towns in the country?

The liberation of Rakka is important and, without a doubt, constitutes a defeat for ISIL. The international media distracted us with “the destruction of archaeological sites” in order to conceal an international illegal trade in archaeological treasures, supported by both the Syrian and Iranian government.  By destroying a country’s memory, you destroy its future. The other problem in Rakka is that the US had brought Kurdish militia forces into Syria to help liberate the city. We can now expect a civilian massacre.

Translated from French

The original author was Faten Hayed

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/05/interview-de-fahad-al-masri-opposant-syrien-et-coordinateur-du-groupe-salut-national-en-syrie.html

 

SYRIA – Palmyra and the Limits of Propaganda in the War against ISIL

Russia and Iran pulled out all the stops to make Bashar al-Assad “the liberator of Palmyra” before the continuation of the Geneva talks in April. Syrian government forces would have been incapable of this task without support from Spetsnaz, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and members of the Iraqi Shia militia. By mid-March, the Russians declared that their air-force was carrying out “20-25 air-strikes per day” and that they had destroyed “158 ISIL targets”. We can imagine the sheer scale of the devastation in the oasis.

Palmyre et les limites de la propagande de guerre anti-Etat islamique

(Photo of Palmyra taken before the civil war)

So “Syrian government troops” regained control of Palmyra (Tadmor in Arabic), a town which they let fall into the hands of ISIL in May 2015, after having offered practically no resistance. We will continue to wonder for a long time to come about the curious blindness of Russian and American spy satellites which failed to spot the columns of jihadi troops moving towards “the pearl of the desert” and its terrifying prison where over a thousand opponents to the government, most of whom were members of the Muslim Brotherhood, were shot dead at point-blank range in 1980. Anyone would think that the occupation of the ancient ruins was advantageous from a media point of view for the Assad regime, which was in desperate straits at the time.

Archaeologists the world over breathed a sigh of relief when the Syrian government regained control of Palmyra.  They will never forget that ISIL destroyed the Temple of Bel (comparable to the God Zeus) and the Temple of Baalshamin (Lord of the Heavens) in order to again wipe out the traces of pre-Islamic religions. Nor will they forget that they smashed the Lion of Athena statue and blew up three towers in the Valley of Tombs. This is obviously excessive. But UNESCO, which refers to “war crimes” when talking about the damage caused, should not forget that the jihadi terrorists are not the only ones to have exploited this site.

From about 2012, rumours began to circulate that gangs obtained archaeological permits in exchange for their support for the Syrian regime. Many ancient treasures were stolen during this period. A group of armed rebels once seized control of the site and raided the tombs to finance their activities. In 2013, following the liberation of the town by Bashar al-Assad’s army and the Shabiha militia (Alawaite mercenaries), photos of soldiers carrying Palmyrene busts were published.

This time, the damage caused by ISIL would appear to be not as extensive as the Western war propaganda claimed, which is good news. In any case, ISIL had shown the damage it caused in its videos.

According to the head of Syrian antiquities, it will take five years to restore the damaged treasures.

Translated from French

The original author was Gilles Munier

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/03/palmyre-et-les-limites-de-la-propagande-de-guerre-anti-etat-islamique.html

 

SYRIA – Towards an Islamic Emirate in Idlib Province?

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the chief of Al-Qaida, had previously opposed the creation of a Syrian Islamic emirate in the areas controlled by the Al-Nusra Front and its allies. Today he supports the idea, believing that the conditions on the ground would allow this.

Syrie : Vers un émirat islamique dans la province d’Idlib?

With this in mind, he is reported to have sent a delegation of leaders from his group to the Idlib province in order to assess the feasibility of the project. Among the delegation was Saif al-Adel, a former colonel of both the Egyptian Special Forces and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. He was accused by the American government of having participated in the 1988 US embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) and in Nairobi (Kenya).

Imprisoned in Iran, Saif al-Adel was apparently released in 2015, along with four other Al-Qaida members, within the framework of an exchange of prisoners with AQAP (Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula) and the Taliban.

An Arab Spring which is on the right track…

In a message broadcasted last May, Ayman al-Zawahiri declared: “Syria today represents hope for the faithful….the only Arab Spring revolution which is on the right track”. He also declared that jihadi fighters should unite “to defeat the war machine of the eastern and western crusades” and that this is “a matter of life or death for them”. He added that the West “aims to create a regime in Syria which will appear to be Islamic but which will be based on a corrupted version of Islam”. And he described the members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an organisation which he considers to be illegitimate, as “extremists” and “renegades”

The entire world has risen up against Muslims

The initiative taken by Ayman al-Zawahiri is backed by Hamza ben Laden – the 23 year-old son of Osama – who also urged all jihadi fighters to unify their ranks, stating that “there are no longer any excuses for those who still want to argue and divide, now that entire world has risen up against Muslims…”

Hamza ben Laden reminded jihadi fighters that the purpose of their combat is the “liberation of Al-Qods” and that “the path to the liberation of Palestine is today shorter thanks to the revolution in Syria”.

The Al-Nusra Front, led by Abou Muhammad al-Joulani, has not yet come to a decision because its allies within the Jaish al-Fatah (The Army of Conquest, which comprises several Islamic groups) fear that news of the creation of an Islamic state in the Idlib province will lead to division in its ranks.

Translated from French

The original author was Gilles Munier

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/05/syrie-vers-un-emirat-islamique-dans-la-province-d-idlib.html

 

 

Syria – Why the West Got it Wrong

Book: Syrie. Pourquoi l’Occident s’est trompé (Syria. Why the West Got it Wrong) Frédéric Pichon, Éditions du Rocher

The publication of this book, which pulls no punches, caused much controversy and created a precedent. Founding member of the magazine Conflits and author of a PhD thesis on the Syrian Christians in Ma’loula, the geopolitical analyst, Frédéric Pichon, has written a savage critique which goes against the current emotional style of many books written today on the situation in Syria.

The author condemns the disastrous management of the Syrian conflict by western governments, French diplomats being the first to blame. While the French government distinguished itself at the very outbreak of the crisis in March 2011 by taking a clearly offensive line, its tendency to take action on all fronts, combining moral outrage with verbal aggression, its military weakness and its faint-hearted attitude led to the consequences that we know today.

Intoxicated by the media euphoria of the so-called “Arab Springs”, France took over a year to reluctantly admit that its negotiating partners, the foreign-based National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, was found wanting in face of the unstoppable rise of the Islamic extremists.

Worse still, France, which wasn’t unaware of the power struggles within this motley opposition group, continually discouraged peace initiatives coming from other Syrian groups opposed to the regime. Working in collaboration with its Saudi and Qatari allies, France apparently did all it could in January 2012 to thwart the Arab League’s mission, mistakenly counting on a rapid overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The tragedy of Syria, whose landscape has been transformed into a battlefield for the world’s Islamic extremists, is also one of media excess and biased coverage of the conflict. Frédéric Pichon shows us that the story is more than one of appalling ignorance. Three years after the declaration of this war waged for others, a war which has claimed a 150,000 lives, he gives us an account of an historical blunder by a France humbled by mistakes and contradictions.

Article Translated from French

The original author was Tigrane Yégavian, journalist for Conflits magazine.

Source: Conflits

http://www.revueconflits.com/syrie-pourquoi-loccident-sest-trompe-de-frederic-pichon